DOE's $11.7M construction contract awarded to Goldbelt Eagle, L.L.C. for West Virginia facility
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $11,744,880 ($11.7M)
Contractor: Goldbelt Eagle, L.L.C.
Awarding Agency: Department of Energy
Start Date: 2004-09-30
End Date: 2007-11-30
Contract Duration: 1,156 days
Daily Burn Rate: $10.2K/day
Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: FIXED PRICE CONSTRUCTION
Place of Performance
Location: MORGANTOWN, MONONGALIA County, WEST VIRGINIA, 26505
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Energy obligated $11.7 million to GOLDBELT EAGLE, L.L.C. for work described as: FIXED PRICE CONSTRUCTION Key points: 1. Contract awarded as a sole-source procurement, raising questions about potential cost efficiencies and market-driven pricing. 2. The firm-fixed-price structure shifts risk to the contractor, potentially leading to higher initial bids but predictable costs. 3. Limited competition suggests a lack of broader market engagement, which could impact innovation and best value. 4. The contract duration of 1156 days indicates a significant, long-term project with substantial resource commitment. 5. Construction services for commercial and institutional buildings are a common federal expenditure, but specific performance metrics are not detailed. 6. The absence of small business participation noted in the data warrants further investigation into subcontracting opportunities.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
Benchmarking the value of this $11.7 million construction contract is challenging without detailed performance metrics or comparable project data. The firm-fixed-price (FFP) award suggests a negotiated price, but the lack of competition limits the ability to assess if the price is competitive. Compared to similar large-scale construction projects, the cost per square foot or per unit of work would be a key metric. However, without knowing the scope of work, the specific facility type, or the labor and material costs in West Virginia during the contract period (2004-2007), a precise value assessment is difficult. The contract's sole-source nature further complicates a direct value comparison to competitively bid projects.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: sole-source
This contract was awarded under a sole-source procurement, meaning it was not open to full and open competition. The data indicates it was 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION.' This typically occurs when only one responsible source is determined to be capable of meeting the government's needs, often due to unique capabilities, proprietary technology, or urgent requirements. The lack of multiple bidders means the government did not benefit from the price discovery mechanisms inherent in a competitive bidding process, potentially leading to a higher price than might have been achieved otherwise.
Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium for this contract due to the absence of competitive pressure. Without competing offers, there is less assurance that the negotiated price represents the best possible value for the government's investment.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiary is the Department of Energy, which receives the construction services for its facilities. The contract delivers essential infrastructure development and maintenance for government operations. The geographic impact is localized to West Virginia, where the construction work was performed. The contract supports the construction workforce, including skilled trades and project management personnel in the region.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Sole-source award limits competitive pricing and potentially reduces value for taxpayers.
- Lack of transparency regarding the justification for sole-source procurement.
- No indication of small business participation or subcontracting goals.
- Contract duration is lengthy, requiring sustained oversight.
- Specific performance metrics and outcomes are not readily available for assessment.
Positive Signals
- Firm-fixed-price contract shifts cost overrun risk to the contractor.
- Contract awarded to a specific entity, Goldbelt Eagle, L.L.C., indicating a known contractor.
- Construction services are essential for government infrastructure.
- The contract was awarded by the Department of Energy, a major federal agency.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector (NAICS code 236220). This sector encompasses establishments primarily engaged in the construction or remodeling of nonresidential buildings. The federal government is a significant consumer of construction services, awarding billions annually for infrastructure, facilities, and specialized buildings. The market for federal construction is often characterized by large, complex projects requiring specialized expertise and adherence to stringent regulations. Benchmarks for this sector would typically involve cost per square foot, cost per trade, and project completion times, though these are highly variable based on project specifics and location.
Small Business Impact
The provided data indicates that this contract was not awarded to a small business (ss: false) and does not explicitly mention small business set-aside provisions (sb: false). Furthermore, there is no information regarding subcontracting plans or achievements. This suggests that opportunities for small businesses to participate in this significant $11.7 million contract may have been limited, either as prime contractors or subcontractors. Further investigation would be needed to determine if any subcontracting goals were established or met, and to assess the overall impact on the small business ecosystem in the region.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Department of Energy's contracting officers and program managers. As a firm-fixed-price contract, oversight would focus on ensuring the contractor meets the defined scope of work, quality standards, and delivery schedules. Transparency regarding the sole-source justification and the contractor's performance would be key accountability measures. While specific Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction is not detailed, the DOE's Office of Inspector General typically oversees federal contracts to detect and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse.
Related Government Programs
- Department of Energy Facilities Construction
- Federal Building Construction Contracts
- Sole-Source Construction Procurements
- Commercial Building Construction
- Institutional Building Construction
Risk Flags
- Sole-source award lacks competitive justification.
- No apparent small business participation.
- Limited transparency on performance metrics.
- Contract duration is substantial, requiring long-term oversight.
Tags
construction, department-of-energy, west-virginia, firm-fixed-price, sole-source, commercial-building-construction, institutional-building-construction, large-contract, federal-agency, infrastructure
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Energy awarded $11.7 million to GOLDBELT EAGLE, L.L.C.. FIXED PRICE CONSTRUCTION
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is GOLDBELT EAGLE, L.L.C..
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Energy (Department of Energy).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $11.7 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2004-09-30. End: 2007-11-30.
What was the specific justification for awarding this construction contract as a sole-source procurement?
The provided data states the contract was 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION,' indicating a sole-source award. The specific justification for this determination is not detailed in the provided data. Typically, sole-source awards are made when only one responsible source is capable of meeting the agency's needs. This could be due to unique technical capabilities, proprietary information, or urgent and compelling circumstances. Without further documentation from the Department of Energy, the precise rationale remains unknown. This lack of competition means the government did not benefit from a competitive bidding process, which could have led to a lower price or a wider range of innovative solutions.
How does the firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type impact risk allocation and potential cost overruns?
A firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract shifts the majority of the cost risk to the contractor, Goldbelt Eagle, L.L.C. Under this type of agreement, the contractor is obligated to complete the work for a predetermined price, regardless of their actual costs. This provides the government with cost certainty, as the final price is fixed. However, it can also incentivize contractors to bid higher prices to account for potential unforeseen expenses or to maximize profit. Conversely, if the contractor manages costs effectively, they can achieve a higher profit margin. The government's primary risk in an FFP contract is ensuring the contractor delivers the specified scope of work and quality standards within the agreed-upon price.
What are the potential implications of awarding a large construction contract without small business participation?
The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses and does not specify any small business subcontracting. This suggests that opportunities for small businesses to participate as prime contractors or subcontractors may have been limited. Awarding large contracts without explicit small business participation goals can reduce the overall economic impact on the small business sector. It may also mean that the government is not leveraging the agility and specialized services that many small businesses offer. A thorough review of the contract's history and any associated subcontracting plans would be necessary to fully assess the impact on small businesses.
Can the value for money be assessed given the contract's duration and sole-source nature?
Assessing the value for money for this $11.7 million contract is challenging due to its sole-source nature and the lack of detailed performance metrics. The firm-fixed-price structure provides cost certainty, but the absence of competition limits the ability to benchmark the price against market rates or other bids. The contract's duration of 1156 days (over three years) suggests a substantial project, and the value would ultimately depend on the quality of the completed construction and its long-term utility for the Department of Energy. Without comparative data or defined performance outcomes, a definitive value-for-money judgment is difficult.
What is the historical spending context for similar construction contracts by the Department of Energy?
The Department of Energy (DOE) frequently awards construction contracts for its vast network of research facilities, power plants, and administrative buildings. Historical spending patterns for DOE construction can vary significantly based on infrastructure modernization needs, new project initiatives, and national security requirements. Contracts of this magnitude ($11.7 million) are common for significant facility upgrades or new construction. However, the DOE also engages in much larger projects, sometimes in the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, particularly for major scientific endeavors or environmental cleanup. The specific type of construction (commercial/institutional) and its sole-source award are key factors that differentiate this contract from others within the DOE's portfolio.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Commercial and Institutional Building Construction
Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, ALTER REAL PROPERTY › MAINT, ALTER, REPAIR BUILDINGS
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Contractor Details
Address: 3604 COLLINS FERRY RD, MORGANTOWN, WV, 02
Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Category Business, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Other Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $11,744,880
Exercised Options: $11,744,880
Current Obligation: $11,744,880
Timeline
Start Date: 2004-09-30
Current End Date: 2007-11-30
Potential End Date: 2007-11-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2010-11-24
More Contracts from Goldbelt Eagle, L.L.C.
- Site Operations Support (SOS) Master Idiq — $90.4M (Department of Energy)
Other Department of Energy Contracts
- Federal Contract — $48.1B (Lockheed Martin Corp)
- ,Ct::igf Contract Award De-Na0003525 to the National Technology&engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC (ntess) for the Management and Operation of the Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration's Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) — $41.7B (National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC)
- Management and Operation of the OAK Ridge National Laboratory — $40.8B (Ut-Battelle LLC)
- TAS::89 0240::TAS This Performance-Based Management Contract (pbmc) IS for the Management and Operation of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (llnl). the Contractor Shall, in Accordance With the Provisions of This Contract, Accomplish the Missions and Programs Assigned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and Manage and Operate the Laboratory. the Laboratory IS ONE of Does Office of Defense Program Multi-Program Laboratories. the Laboratory IS a Federally Funded Research and Development Institution (established in Accordance With the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 35 and Operated Under This Management and Operating (M&O) Contract, AS Defined in FAR 17.6 and Dear 917.6 — $40.8B (Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC)
- M&O of Lanl BR of U of CA — $35.3B (Regents of the University of California, the)